Policy —

Samsung drops (one) Apple patent countersuit

Samsung has dropped one of its patent infringement countersuits against Apple …

After Apple sued Samsung back in April over claims that the Korean company's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets ripped off Apple's iPhone software, hardware, and design patents, Samsung fired back. It filed lawsuits against Apple in Europe and Asia, and it filed a patent infringement countersuit against Apple here in the US.

That lawsuit quickly got messy, with both sides demanding access to unreleased prototypes of the other's hardware as part of the case and firing off accusations of harassment at their opponents. Today, though, it was reported that Samsung decided to drop its US countersuit.

According to Bloomberg, which got hold of a Samsung rep in Seoul, the case was actually dismissed on June 30. The dismissal will "streamline" Samsung's legal caseload, according to the report, but Samsung will continue its overseas cases and continue to prosecute an earlier US case against Apple.

Samsung didn't just drop that lawsuit but instead CONSOLIDATED it into the same process that was started by Apple with the same court -- and even INCREASED the number of U.S. patents asserted against Apple in California from 10 to 12.

It doesn't matter how many lawsuits you have in the same court. What matters is how many patents you assert in a given jurisdiction. And in that regard, Samsung is now doing MORE, NOT LESS. It even has advantages for Samsung to integrate its allegations into Apple's lawsuit as counterclaims because this way they can be sure that Apple's case won't be decided before their claims are decided.

So why did Samsung file a separate lawsuit in the first place? I'm sure they only did this because they wanted to show very quickly (within less than two weeks in this case) that they could strike back against Apple with U.S. patents of their own. It was quicker for this purpose to file an INITIALLY SEPARATE lawsuit. Why quicker? Because otherwise they would have had to file their counterclaims simultaneously with their defense. Defense plus counterclaims is far more work to do than just bringing accusations. So they filed a separate lawsuit first, but I'm sure they never realistically expected it to stay separate forever.

I still think it borders on deceptive to equate the two. Samsung's "unreleased prototype" was a device publicly demo'd at a trade show ages earlier. Demoing and doing press releases on a device, even if it is not in fact yet available to the public, significantly weakens the expectation of privacy you can have associated with it.

Regardless of past statements, Florian is absolutely correct about what happened. Samsung simply consolidated its patent case with Apple's case - nothing was given up. My thought is that most of the press (and Bloomberg is no exception) have no idea about anything patent related (heck, the Supreme Court is not even competent - in its most recent patent case the opinion suggested that a patent gives you a right to practice when that is demonstratebly false - patents only give you the right to exclude others).

As an aside, there are a lot of patent reasons for not liking Android. Goggle is offering an OS that uses a lot of patented technology and doesn't have the patent pool to support its position. Therefore, it is placing its users in a precarious position (and the bigger ones are forced to take licenses from MS and probably Apple and maybe others). But I still like Android, it is a decent alternative to Apple and since MS has been slow to provide anything competitive, is about the only choice if you don't like Apple's "walled garden."

It will be years before there's any chance it will appear in case studies, but I would kill to see Samsung's risk/reward analysis of the whole patent situation with Apple, their biggest customer. Presumably they think they'll gain more than they lose, and they'll likely lose billions of dollars of revenue per year as Apple shifts purchasing away.

They're in a very difficult position, and I imagine that Samsung executive meetings feature some very interesting discussion of the way their component business has ended up in opposition to their handset business. Only time will tell if their strategy is the right one, but it's got to be a fascinating analysis.

As an aside, there are a lot of patent reasons for not liking Android. Goggle[sic] is offering an OS that uses a lot of patented technology and doesn't have the patent pool to support its position.

Which is a great example of how completely broken the system currently is, when something cannot be developed and stand on its own merits without a huge pile of patents to defend it from being attacked and potentially run under.

Sadly, situations like this are not at all what patents were created for.

It will be years before there's any chance it will appear in case studies, but I would kill to see Samsung's risk/reward analysis of the whole patent situation with Apple, their biggest customer. Presumably they think they'll gain more than they lose, and they'll likely lose billions of dollars of revenue per year as Apple shifts purchasing away.

Samsung got along fine before Apple became their "biggest customer." If they lose Apple as a customer they will continue to get along fine. (Ditto, Intel.) In terms of a percentage of total business, Apple clearly has benefited more from the relationships it has with both Samsung and Intel than those companies have benefited from their association with Apple. I really tire of the incessant "if Apple goes away the world ends" mentality--there's not a shred of truth to it.

As for Florien Mueller: All he needs to do to gain any credibility is publicly state what if any conflicts of interest he has. This is not out of the question for someone claiming to be an independent. Yet he refuses to state whether or not he gets paid to sling mud against Android and other open source projects.

@JamesKatt: That's just dumb. The same attacks were leveled at Nokia and look how that turned out. Besides, there is now law from copying characteristics of a device. You think one TV maker didn't copy some other when it comes to controls or device specs? Should every car have their controls set up in a different format? All they are doing is the same thing everyone else does. Its called standardization. And it happens with or without a formal process (like the ISO) pushing it.

Never ever ever trust anything Florian ever blogs about, says or pretends to be an expert at. He is just looking for attention and enjoys being the king of FUDsters

don't trust anyone trying to plug (spam) their own blog in comments.posts like that should be deleted.

++ This, a thousand times. Spam-linking to your blog when there's absolutely no reason to do so is something they teach you to do in those "HOW TO MARKET ON THE INTARWEBS" seminars they hold at the Holiday Inn for unemployed former copier salesmen. It's narcissistic, obnoxious behavior and Ars should ban on-the-spot for it. I submit a spam report every time I see one and add the person to my ignore list.

Samsung's lawyers should be paid for their time, and if they lose their case, the punishment is that their reputation suffers.

Quote:

Samsung is completely in the wrong in slavishly copying Apple.

That would be like a car marker copying Ferrari's care designs rather than developing their own.

Agreed (although you can drop the 'slavishly' word, it's still too emotive), but why use a car analogy for something we can easily understand? Analogies only serve to confuse the issue when the issue is simple enough.

As for Florien Mueller: All he needs to do to gain any credibility is publicly state what if any conflicts of interest he has. This is not out of the question for someone claiming to be an independent. Yet he refuses to state whether or not he gets paid to sling mud against Android and other open source projects.

Nonsense. Considering his long history of fighting against software patents, and the numerous awards and recognition he's receive for that work, and the funding he's received from such well known open source companies as Red Hat, he has no need to "gain" credibility. He already has it.

The current FUD campaign against Mueller largely comes from two sources. First was Groklaw which started attacking Mueller because Mueller has attacked IBM for their strong pro-software patent stance. Attacking IBM was a no-no at Groklaw under PJ. (For those who don't realize how pro-software patents IBM is, in their Bilski brief they actually told the Supreme Court that it is software patents that are responsible for the explosive growth in free software!).

No. They weren't. That was about payment terms over the licensing of 3G technology. This is about Samsung basically ripping-off Apple's trade dress, which is copyright infringement. Sadly in the clusterfuck that is US copyright law, that comes under the even bigger clusterfuck that is the USPTO, hence both side chucking patents around. Now, in real terms those claiming that Apple have no case and that Samsung haven't copied them are exactly the same as the courtiers in the Emperor's New Clothes. Now, I don't care to eulogise any particular platform (use what makes you happy), but calling someone a fanboy, however ridiculous their comment is (and JamesKatt really is beyond the pale; fuckwittery of the highest order--hence this minor acknowledgement) is just saying the same about yourself. Don't feed the trolls

No. They weren't. That was about payment terms over the licensing of 3G technology. This is about Samsung basically ripping-off Apple's trade dress, which is copyright infringement. Sadly in the clusterfuck that is US copyright law, that comes under the even bigger clusterfuck that is the USPTO, hence both side chucking patents around.

Get a grip now dude, Trade Dress has nothing to do with Copyright law. Trade Dress is part of Trademark Law. You might want to edumacate yourself before you go bloviating.

The Samsung case is much the same as when Apple sued eMachines for their iMac knockoff called the eOne in the late 90s on Trade Dress grounds.

The opposite of what the article and the Bloomberg story suggests is the case.

It's nice being the first post but next time READ the article and COMPREHEND then post. Know your subject. Apple plays with time... a lot. There was more info that you overlooked.

Samsung may have streamlined their suit but (16 June, 2011) Apple's complaint is now bigger: from 38 pages to 63. Stronger phrases, better descriptions such as substituting "copied" for "misappropriated [Apple's distinctive product packaging]" gives strength to those accusations.

In a twist, Apple ask for a court process called a Preliminary Injunction on 1 July -a LONG weekend. If motion is granted, Samsung will be forced within a matter of a few months -possibly less than two months- to take its flagship Android-based products from the US market (this would force Samsung's hand to settle quickly). But if Samsung doesn't cave and Apple's motion fails, Apple's position will look weak and 'delusions of grandeur' may persist among the unknowing.

Courts grants a preliminary injunction only if there's a really strong and convincing case which is why Apple's complaint is larger.

"Could you state explicitely, that you're have not been and are not currently being paid 1) by any of the companies being Google's competitors and 2) to work on PR stuff related to Google Android? Just to make things clear once and for all."

It will be years before there's any chance it will appear in case studies, but I would kill to see Samsung's risk/reward analysis of the whole patent situation with Apple, their biggest customer. Presumably they think they'll gain more than they lose, and they'll likely lose billions of dollars of revenue per year as Apple shifts purchasing away.

Samsung got along fine before Apple became their "biggest customer." If they lose Apple as a customer they will continue to get along fine. (Ditto, Intel.) In terms of a percentage of total business, Apple clearly has benefited more from the relationships it has with both Samsung and Intel than those companies have benefited from their association with Apple. I really tire of the incessant "if Apple goes away the world ends" mentality--there's not a shred of truth to it.

Business people tend to be more analytical and less emotional than you come across there. Nobody's talking about the world ending or Samsung going bankrupt.

What I was saying is that Samsung makes $X under current arrangements. Clearly, they did some analysis to look at scenarios for responses to Apple's complaints, and they decided they would make $Y if they caved in some way, and $Z if they fought back aggressively. Both $Y and $Z are weighted by outcome probabilities. The net $Z, in their analysis, is more than net $Y. That's the analysis that would be fascinating to see.

All of that stuff exists entirely outside the fanboy/hateboy perspective you're coming from. Sure, Apple sucks, Samsung is better off without them, whatever. You've got a favorite team and a hated team and it's all sports to you. Tell you what: I won't bring business into your fanboy posts if you'll agree to leave the rah-rah out of business discussions.

Business people tend to be more analytical and less emotional than you come across there. Nobody's talking about the world ending or Samsung going bankrupt.

What I was saying is that Samsung makes $X under current arrangements. Clearly, they did some analysis to look at scenarios for responses to Apple's complaints, and they decided they would make $Y if they caved in some way, and $Z if they fought back aggressively. Both $Y and $Z are weighted by outcome probabilities. The net $Z, in their analysis, is more than net $Y. That's the analysis that would be fascinating to see.

Agreed. If it goes against them and Samsung had only figured on the cost of an eventual settlement, chances are they would still have come out way ahead, and if it went for them they would come out way way ahead. But losing all that revenue from component sales on a quarterly basis is going to hurt in a big way as they're not likely to replace that amount of sales anytime soon. So my question would be did the go-ahead factor in that as a likely consequence, or did it just not occur to the decision-makers that Apple might hit back that way?

"Could you state explicitely, that you're have not been and are not currently being paid 1) by any of the companies being Google's competitors and 2) to work on PR stuff related to Google Android? Just to make things clear once and for all."

I doubt you will reply to that, since you are full of shit.

He has answered that question, several times, but a group of FUD spreading trolls keep following him around and asking it over and over again. It's interesting that most of these trolls never disclose their affiliations.

What I was saying is that Samsung makes $X under current arrangements. Clearly, they did some analysis to look at scenarios for responses to Apple's complaints, and they decided they would make $Y if they caved in some way, and $Z if they fought back aggressively. Both $Y and $Z are weighted by outcome probabilities. The net $Z, in their analysis, is more than net $Y. That's the analysis that would be fascinating to see.

It's probably largely contigent on the idea that Samsung can become the producers of consumer level goods - not just part providers. Companies like Samsung have ambitions they don't just want to produce nice screens or processors - but the whole thing and make the profits.

It makes sense - these companies make the product - assemble - and Apple gets the profits when they stamp their name on it. Why shouldn't they try for a piece of the market? You have to aim big to succeed.. Asus is doing the same thing with their transformer. These companies are not content to just give the market to Apple.

So its not like gee we will lose this much money if x happens. It's well if we go into the phone/tablet business an score 30% of this hugely growing market we will make WAY MORE then if we just provide Apple with parts.. In the short term its very likely they will lose alot of money.. But its the long term they have to think about.